Bellum Iugurthinum

[Pacifica]

Literally: "But, surely, let it have been a preparation of a kindom/reign to give their things back to the people".

The construction with the perfect subjunctive, in this case, means that the author is conceding this argument, even if it may not be true.

In more usual English you could say something like: "But let us assume that giving their things back to the people indeed meant that he was preparing to become king."

 

[Katarina]

Novos nemo tam clarus neque tam egregiis factis erat, quin indignus illo honore et is quasi pollutus haberetur.

I don't get novos, why accusatie? I would put nominative here.

There was noone new - no metter how famouos ar important his facts were - whom they wouldn't deem as unwothy of this office and they 'acted' as he was polluted. ?

 

[Pacifica]

It is nominative singular.

The -us ending of the second declension used to be -os in an archaic stage of the language, and there was sometimes a remnant of this in later times after the letter v. It seems some Romans didn't like writing two u's/V's (these were the same letter back then) in a row, so they used the -os variant in words like novos and servos for novus and servus.

 

[Bitmap]

I can only see it make sense as a Greek accusative / an accusative of respect: With regard to the homines novi (...)

 

[Pacifica]

BTW I think is refers to illo honore as there would be no point in throwing a random is in there if the subject stayed the same throughout.

 

[Bitmap]

It is nominative singular.

The -us ending of the second declension used to be -os in an archaic stage of the language, and there was sometimes a remnant of this in later times after the letter v. It seems some Romans didn't like writing two u's/V's (these were the same letter back then) in a row, so they used the -os variant in words like novos and servos for novus and servus.

Ow, ok, I stand corrected.

 

[Pacifica]

BTW I think is refers to illo honore as there would be no point in throwing a random is in there if the subject stayed the same throughout.

I've found versions where the is is moved to just after quin or is where you've got it but put in brackets as if it were a doubtful reading. The sentence probably reads best with it just after quin. (So, with the man staying the subject throughout.)

 

[Bitmap]

I've found versions where the is is moved to just after quin or is where you've got it but put in brackets as if it were a doubtful reading. The sentence probably reads best with it just after quin. (So, with the man staying the subject throughout.)

I've got it at home as an Oxford edition, I wonder what that one says.

 

[Katarina]

Id ea gratia facilius proniusque fuit, quod Bocchus initio huiusce belli legatos Romam miserat foedus et amicitiam petitum, quam rem oppurtunissimam incepto bello pauci impediaverant caeci avaritia, quis omnia honesta atque inhonesta vendere mos erat.

I find it only way to translate this if quis = quibus, so here would stand dativus possesoris but I haven't found anywhere that it can be shortened this was.

 

[Bitmap]

I've got it at home as an Oxford edition, I wonder what that one says.

My edition doesn't have the is at all.

Id ea gratia facilius proniusque fuit, quod Bocchus initio huiusce belli legatos Romam miserat foedus et amicitiam petitum, quam rem oppurtunissimam incepto bello pauci impediaverant caeci avaritia, quis omnia honesta atque inhonesta vendere mos erat.

I find it only way to translate this if quis = quibus, so here would stand dativus possesoris but I haven't found anywhere that it can be shortened this was.

You are right.

quīs can mean quibus. It is an archaic form.